Originally posted by telerionAt least KJ agrees - creationism is faith. Throw away science - you don't need it when you have faith.
Once blood clotting is taken care of you'll just have another silly "how could x have occured" question. It would be a good question except that you have no real curiosity. Why should you? You already no what the universe is for, where it came from, and where it is going. Who cares what we see around us. The Bible cannot be wrong!
Really you have ...[text shortened]... ntellectual inquiry does us all a great disservice KJ. Enough said. Continue with the charade.
I wonder - when he gets sick- does he pray or use antibiotics?
Originally posted by DelmerTOE is a gigantic cost/benifit analysis. Everytime you want an extra feature you have to pay for it, or leave something out. Is this calculation you have to weigh the advantages of one feature compared to the expences. Sure an ability to see at night is good, but if it costs you the ability to distinct eatable fruits from non-eatable eat, then you might want to think twice.
But wouldn't it have been of great benefit for protohumans to see in the dark if something suddenly woke them, like a hungry carnivore, for example? Wouldn't those who could see best in the dark survive and breed more often than the others?
I don't know what kind of enemies the protohumans faced back then million years ago, but since we can see colours today, it would indicate that they weren't so dangerous that the protohumans needed to see at night.
Originally posted by nickybuttnicky is exactly right. Delmer if you know anything about constrained optimization, that basically describes what's going on in the aggregate.
TOE is a gigantic cost/benifit analysis. Everytime you want an extra feature you have to pay for it, or leave something out. Is this calculation you have to weigh the advantages of one feature compared to the expences. Sure an ability to see at night is good, but if it costs you the ability to distinct eatable fruits from non-eatable eat, then you might wa ...[text shortened]... it would indicate that they weren't so dangerous that the protohumans needed to see at night.
Originally posted by telerionI applaud your faith and the fact that it provides an answer for every question I can ask. Just two more questions: 1. how did altruism evolve? 2. how did the god concept evolve?
nicky is exactly right. Delmer if you know anything about constrained optimization, that basically describes what's going on in the aggregate.
Most TOE supporters give me the impression that they believe that the god concept is a negative and is interfering with the progress of the species. If so, why then would it have evolved and grown to such major status within the species?
Originally posted by telerionI'm not pushing (Bible) creation into the public school, but I am
Ok then let's let the Raelians have a turn and then the Greek Pagans. Next come the Maya Quiche. Then the zoroastrians. Finally let's leave time in the semester for any idea anyone has. Once you say, "The Bible says so. I take it on faith that this is the Truth," Muffy will rise from the classroom and what a fool you'll look.
That's why we have science with tests, criticisms, and updates. When was the last time Genesis 1 got an update?
pointing out to you there isn't much a difference between the faith
of someone reading the Bible and the faith of someone who thinks
they figured out what happened billions of years ago on their own
by looking at what they see in the here and now. Both people must
believe using assumptions on the evidence we have today and
applying our beliefs on what they mean is a belief. Tests are fine, as
long as we can move away from assumptions and beliefs, but when
we are stuck with faith and beliefs because of assmptions and beliefs
your science is no different, it is just another belief ssystem among
many.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionTake care of blood clotting and stay away from the personal stuff if
Once blood clotting is taken care of you'll just have another silly "how could x have occured" question. It would be a good question except that you have no real curiosity. Why should you? You already no what the universe is for, where it came from, and where it is going. Who cares what we see around us. The Bible cannot be wrong!
Really you have ...[text shortened]... ntellectual inquiry does us all a great disservice KJ. Enough said. Continue with the charade.
you can. I was under the impression you said science could handle
criticism, that it in fact desired it as part of the process. So if that
is true, let’s see if what science has to offer makes sense or if it is
just another belief system among many?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayGets my rec, KJ.
I'm not pushing (Bible) creation into the public school, but I am
pointing out to you there isn't much a difference between the faith
of someone reading the Bible and the faith of someone who thinks
they figured out what happened billions of years ago on their own
by looking at what they see in the here and now. Both people must
believe using assumpt ...[text shortened]... and beliefs
your science is no different, it is just another belief ssystem among
many.
Kelly
1 edit
"but I am pointing out to you there isn't much a difference between the faith of someone reading the Bible and the faith of someone who thinks
they figured out what happened billions of years ago on their own
by looking at what they see in the here and now."
There is quite a lot of difference. One has no empirical evidence, the other does.
Originally posted by DelmerExcellent questions.
I applaud your faith and the fact that it provides an answer for every question I can ask. Just two more questions: 1. how did altruism evolve? 2. how did the god concept evolve?
Most TOE supporters give me the impression that they believe that the god concept is a negative and is interfering with the progress of the species. If so, why then would it have evolved and grown to such major status within the species?
Since English is not my mother tongue language I am not excactly sure what it means, so I looked it up in a dictionary, which said that it basically an unselfish concern for the welfare of others, so I'll respond to that.
The answer can be divided into to parts, kin altruism, and regular altruism.
The first one is easily answered, because relatives share, to some extend, the same genes. It is therefor beneficial for your own gene pool if you help someone with a similar one
The second is a bit more complicated. But basically it has to do with tha fact that fairness and cooperation have value when dealing with people in social groups. Studies have shown that a generous persons benefit from an improved reputation, and even altruistic punishment is socially beneficial.
Regarding religion. Religion fits very well with the TOE, since religion is a very successful instrument to control social groups. It is logical that well organised societies would prevail in expense of other less organised societies.
Originally posted by PotatoErrorLOL! Groups that didn't sacrifice themselves for others died out. Have you been reading the posts in this forum? It appears to me that just the opposite happened, or at least is happening now.
"1. how did altruism evolve?"
Groups that weren't altruistic died out.
"2. how did the god concept evolve?"
It didn't evolve. It was intelligently designed.
Your second answer, PE, is a good one indeed.
Originally posted by steerpikeI'm not at all nor have I ever said we should throw away science! I
At least KJ agrees - creationism is faith. Throw away science - you don't need it when you have faith.
I wonder - when he gets sick- does he pray or use antibiotics?
have maintained that we just need to keep our matters of faith, faith
and our facts, facts. When we cross the line and claim that matters of
faith such as what may have happened billions ago is a fact, we left
science and have moved into matters of belief, and are building on
things that cannot be proven creating a world view that has nothing to
do with facts or science.
Kelly
but what happened a billion years ago is not based on faith.
There are fossil bacteria in 1 billion year rock for example. And there is evidence in iron beds that the atmosphere became more oxyidised.
So do these ideas really require the same amount of faith as say believing blue unicorns pranced around 1 billion years ago?
Originally posted by KellyJayI have one question for you KJ. How old do you think the Universe is?
I'm not at all nor have I ever said we should throw away science! I
have maintained that we just need to keep our matters of faith, faith
and our facts, facts. When we cross the line and claim that matters of
faith such as what may have happened billions ago is a fact, we left
science and have moved into matters of belief, and are building on
things t ...[text shortened]... t cannot be proven creating a world view that has nothing to
do with facts or science.
Kelly
Of course I have an ulterior motive behind that question, which is:
If you believe the world to be young (e.g. anything under 3 billion years old) you are not only not accepting the science of evolution, but also a lot of other sciences, including geology, physics, astronomy, and indirectly medical science.
So how old is the Universe?
Originally posted by PotatoErrorYou point to empirical evidence as someone else points to the Koran
"but I am pointing out to you there isn't much a difference between the faith of someone reading the Bible and the faith of someone who thinks
they figured out what happened billions of years ago on their own
by looking at what they see in the here and now."
There is quite a lot of difference. One has no empirical evidence, the other does.
or the Bible when we are talking about the beginning or billions of
years ago. All three cannot show you what took place billions of years
ago, they can only give you something to believe in. You look at the
evidence; you think you know what it means, and you build a belief
system upon it, in the faith you are getting it right.
Kelly